About your Search

20130107
20130115
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)
to justify. you know how the sunlight foundation added up political spending in this past election to see who got the most bang for their buck in their political spending? it was really bad on the right. the republican party's house campaign committee spent almost $65 million, but only 32% of what they spent went to campaigns in which their candidate was successful. so two-to-one, their money was spent on losing. it was worse for the republican party's senate campaign. for their investment of $32 million, only 24% paid off in terms of races that went the way they wanted to. three to one, their money was spent losing. freedomworks was about the same. and the chamber of commerce, which is supposed to be such an impressible and unassailable campaign juggernaut, the chamber of commerce spent $32 million, but less than 7% of what they spent went to winning candidates they wanted to win, or against losing candidates that they wanted to lose. less than 7%. they were 93% ineffective in what they spent. even worse than that was karl rove's american crossroads, which was like the conservative politics
election. but most of them, honestly, were from the republican primaries. come on. very few of the laugh out loud moments from the last election involved president obama himself telling a laugh out loud deadpan joke. but it did happen once. >> i think governor romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. you mentioned the navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military's changed. we have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. we have ships that go underwater. nuclear submarines. >> ships that go underwater. after that moment in the third presidential debate last year there was a brief but fascinating flurry of really earnest fact checking about the question of whether or not there really are fewer bayonets in the u.s. military right now. remember? tmz had an exclusive inside scoop on outrage from the bayonet community. "we are not obsolete." in fact, the last famous bayonet charge in american history was in 1951 during the ko
's called americans for responsible solutions. they say their goal is to, quote, encourage elected officials to stand up for solutions that will prevent gun violence. it's a new political pressure group, in other words. congresswoman gabby giffords and her husband launched this today in a high profile, well done media blitz. they sat through a moving interview with diane sawyer. they published a joint op ed in usa today where they demanded change from washington. but they also pointed to their own unique role in this fight, not just with the former congresswoman as a victim of gun violence, but with her having been a member of congress who was a staunch supporter of the second amendment. gabby giffords was a very pro-gun rights democratic member of congress. she and her husband are not commie liberal pinkos coming to confiscate yours guns. they are both gun owners themselves. "forget the boogie man of big bad government coming to dispossess you of your firearms. as a western woman and a persian gulf war combat veteran who have exercised our second amendment rights, we do not want to take awa
before the election this year, but did not get released until after the election for some reason, the official pentagon support on the readiness of afghan security forces says far from afghan security forces being ready to take the lead, it says out of 23 afghan army brigades, only one of those 23 brigades is capable of operating independently without support from international or u.s. troops. this is the graphic in that report that says that. brilliant graphic, right? this is how the pentagon presents data that it doesn't really want to make headlines. but i can interpret it for you. you see the 23 i've circled there? that's the number of brigades. how many brigades can operate, you see there, independent with advisers? well, oh, one. 1 of 23. even if you're bad at math, you can tell that's not good. the same report, the pentagon's own report shows after the u.s. troop surge in afghanistan, violence in that country was actually higher than it was before the surge, not lower than it was before the surge. so in what case was the surge a success? so it is a bit rich that the reason
this was not a surprise. he said he was going to do it before he got elected. once he got elected, he did it. he tripled the number of troops there, and he put this long, long end date on when the war was going to end, at the end of 2014, even after killing osama bin laden when guys like chuck hagel were saying okay, osama bin laden is dead. can we go now? we have not gone. and there is potentially another two years of it not ending ahead of us. by picking chuck hagel as defense secretary today, yes, the president has picked a political fight, although probably it's one that he can win. but by picking john brennan and chuck hagel together today, the president has made a complicated but emphatic statement about national security and how he intends to be remembered. and how he intends to either keep fighting or bringing americans home from the fighting after 12 long years over the course of this second presidential term. joining us now is andrea mitchell. she is nbc's chief foreign affairs correspondent. andrea, thanks for being here. i appreciate you taking the time. >> thank you. happy new year. i haven
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)